Dismissed

Raju S/O Basappa Kali, v. Shanta W/O Vasanth Bevinamatti

Karnataka HC7 Sept 2022CRL.A/100001/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a byeletter appeal against acquittal, the High Court upheld the trial court's order dismissing charges of abetment to suicide. The court found the prosecution failed to authenticate a death note via handwriting expert and lacked independent evidence to prove the accused instigated the deceased.

What did the court decide?

Appeal against acquittal dismissed.

Raju S/O Basappa Kali, Vs Shanta W/O Vasanth… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.A No. 100001 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100001 OF 2015 (A-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAJU S/O. BASAPPA KALI, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. ASUTI, TQ: RON, NOW AT: SARVODAYA COLONY, GADAG.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. HAREESH S. NAYAK., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT.SHANTA W/O VASANTH BEVINAMATTI, AGE: 50 YEARS, R/O. MANJUNATH NAGAR,

¶13

BETAGERI, TQ AND DIST: GADAG.

¶14

VASANTH S/O SHIVABASAPPA BEVINAMATTI, AGE: 54 YEARS, R/O. MANJUNATH NAGAR, BETAGERI, TQ AND DIST: GADAG.

¶15

BASAVRAJ S/O VASANTH BEVINAMATTI, AGE: 28 YEARS, R/O. MANJUNATH NAGAR,

¶16

BETAGERI, TQ AND DIST: GADAG.

¶17

KUM.HEMA D/O VASANTH BEVINAMATTI, AGE: 24 YEARS, R/O. MANJUNATH NAGAR,

¶18

BETAGERI, TQ AND DIST: GADAG.

¶19

KARIYAVVA W/O HANUMANTHAPPA KURI, AGE: 64 YEARS, R/O. BELAVANAKI, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG.

¶20

SMT.SHEKAVVA W/O DURGAPPA KURI, AGE: 65 YEARS, R/O. BELAVANAKI, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG.

¶21

¶22

CRL.A No. 100001 of 2015

¶23

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, (GADAG TOWN POLICE) REP.BY SPP DHARWAD.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3 TO R6 (BY SRI. SMT.GIRIJA S. HIREMATH., HCGP FOR R7) ( APPEAL AGAINST R2 IS ABATED)

¶26

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378 r/w 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED IN S.C.NO.7/2013, DATED 25.09.2014, PASSED BY THE ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG AND PRAYING TO CONVICT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 6.

¶27

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, COURT DELIVERED:

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

This is complainant’s appeal against the judgment and order dated 25.09.2014, acquitting the accused persons of all the charges.

¶30

For the sake of convenience parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court.

¶31

A charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 6 alleging that the marriage of deceased Muttappa and Uma, took place about two months prior to the date of incident. It is alleged that accused persons being the parents and near relatives of deceased Uma, were not in favor of she leading a happy married

¶32

¶33

CRL.A No. 100001 of 2015

¶34

life with deceased Muttappa and they used to abuse deceased Muttappa, questioning his potency and also give life threat to him. In his absence they used to go to their house and instigate deceased Uma to quarrel with deceased Muttappa. Unable to bear the harassment, on 23.07.2011, during night, deceased Muttappa picked up quarrel with deceased Uma, as a result of which deceased Uma slapped him. Therefore after leaving a death note, in between 11:30 pm of 23.07.2011 and 4:30 am of 24.07.2011, deceased Muttappa killed Uma by strangulating her and committed suicide by slashing his wrists and thereafter hanging himself and thereby the accused persons committed the offences punishable under Sections 306, 504, 506, r/w/s.149 of IPC.

¶35

The accused have pleaded not guilty to the charges

¶36

pleaded against them and claimed trial.

¶37

In support of prosecution case PWs.1 to 11 are

¶38

examined and Ex.Ps 1 to 6 are marked.

¶39

During the course of their statement under Section 313

¶40

of Cr.P.C, accused have denied the incriminating evidence. 7. They have not chosen to lead defence evidence on

¶41

their behalf.

¶42

¶43

CRL.A No. 100001 of 2015

¶44

Vide impugned judgment and order the trial Court has

¶45

acquitted the accused persons of all the charges.

¶46

During the course of arguments learned counsel for the complainant/ appellant submitted that the impugned judgment and order is bad in law. In spite of there being sufficient evidence to hold the accused persons responsible for the crime, the trial Court has acquitted them on flimsy grounds. The findings of the trial Court is contrary to the evidence placed on record and as such perverse and prays to allow the appeal, convict the accused and punish them accordingly.

¶47

On the other hand the learned counsel representing the accused persons supported the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and submitted that the alleged death note at Ex.P.2 left by deceased Muttappa is not proved in accordance with law. There is no evidence worth consideration to connect the accused persons with the alleged crime. Even if the contents of the death note at Ex.P.2 are accepted on the face of it, it does not attract the charges leveled against the accused persons and prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶48

Heard the arguments and perused the records.

¶49

¶50

CRL.A No. 100001 of 2015

¶51

It is pertinent to note that deceased Muttappa and deceased Uma were married couple. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are the parents and accused Nos.3 and 4 are the brother and sister, accused Nos.5 and 6 are the relatives of the deceased Uma. It is the definite case of the prosecution that on the fateful day i.e., on the intervening night of 23/24-072011, deceased Muttappa killed his wife Uma and thereafter committed suicide. This fact is not in dispute. However, the allegations against accused that being parents brothers and close family members of deceased Uma, they were instigating her to quarrel with the deceased and the intention behind this is that they wanted to indulge Uma in immoral activity and therefore they were insulting the deceased Muttappa saying that he was impotent and therefore making use of the said situation, the accused persons quarrelling with him and also instigating Uma to quarrel with the deceased Muttappa and this abated deceased Muttappa to commit the murder of his wife Uma and also commit suicide.

¶52

¶53

CRL.A No. 100001 of 2015

¶54

Thus Ex.P.2/ death note is the trump card of

¶55

the prosecution case based on which charge sheet came to be filed. However, for reason best known to him the investigating officer has not chosen to send Ex.P.2 to hand writing expert and get the report that it is in the hand writing of deceased Muttappa. It is pertinent to note that deceased Muttappa was working as a teacher. Certainly his hand written samples would be available at the school and making use of any such sample hand writing, it would have become very easy and convenient for the investigating officer to sent the Ex.P.2 to the hand writing expert and establish that it is in his hand writing. However, the investigating officer has not chosen to do the same. It is also relevant to note that the prosecution has not examined the investigating officer before the Court, so as to enable the accused persons to question him as to why this important aspect of the matter is not taken care of by him.

¶56

The prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW.1-Raju Basappa Kali, the complainant and close

¶57

¶58

CRL.A No. 100001 of 2015

¶59

relative of deceased Muttappa, PW.7-Shivalingappa Ningappa Madiwal-Head Master of the School, PW.8 Veerappa Renakappa Madiwalar-Attainder of the School and PW.10-Sumitra Doddamani-Teacher working in the School where the deceased was working. All these witnesses have identified Ex.P.2 as being in hand writing of deceased Muttappa. The accused persons have denied and disputed that Ex.P.2 is in the hand writing of deceased Muttappa. Such being the case, proper course open to the investigation officer was to send Ex.P.2 to the hand writing expert, along with other sample hand writing of deceased Muttappa and after establishing the sample hand writing, it would have been very easy for the prosecution to prove that Ex.P.2 is in the hand writing of deceased Muttappa. In the absence of such exercise the prosecution has failed to prove Ex.P.2 is in the hand writing of deceased Muttappa.

¶60

Now the next question is whether independent of proving that the Ex.P.2 is in the hand writing of deceased Muttappa, whether the prosecution has proved from other evidence that the accused persons abated

¶61

¶62

CRL.A No. 100001 of 2015

¶63

deceased Muttappa to commit murder of wife Uma and then commit suicide. It is a definite case of the prosecution that deceased Muttappa was impotent and the accused persons were instigating deceased Uma raising the question of impotency of deceased Muttappa and making her to quarrel with him and this is the sole reason for deceased Muttapp to kill his wife and commit suicide.

¶64

At the out set it is relevant to note that the evidence placed on the record, specifically the crossexamination of prosecution witnesses prove the fact that deceased Muttappa and Uma fell in love and after Uma became pregnant, the accused persons gave threat of filing criminal complaint as deceased Uma was minor at that time and in this background deceased Muttappa choose to marry deceased Uma. It is also come in the evidence that for a very short period, deceased Uma stayed along with deceased Muttappa in the house of her in laws and thereafter at her instance deceased Muttappa established a separate residence and they started living in the said house. It has also come in the evidence that at

¶65

¶66

CRL.A No. 100001 of 2015

¶67

the time of her death deceased Uma was pregnant and in fact the baby shower function (Kubusada Karya) was held and after the said ceremony, once again the accused persons started instigating Uma to quarrel with the deceased Muttappa.

¶68

The evidence of PW.1 establish the fact that on the date of incident i.e., on the night of 23.07.2011 also a quarrel took place between the both deceased and in fact Muttappa gave a slap on deceased Uma and she in return also slapped him. When PW.1 intervened, deceased Uma wanted him not to interfere in their affair and therefore he went down to sleep. On the next day at 4-00 am, when he got up to study and went to the room of deceased, he found both of them dead. PW.1 has stated that both the wrists of Muttappa were slashed and he was also hanging from the Ceiling. However, the evidence of PW.11/Dr.Rajendra Basarigidad, does not speak about the wrist of deceased being slashed. He has only deposed regarding the death of Muttappa being due to hanging.

¶69

10 -

¶70

CRL.A No. 100001 of 2015

¶71

It is also relevant to note that during the course

¶72

of this evidence Raju Basappa Kale, who is the complainant has deposed that immediately after the incident, he lodged the complaint stating that deceased Muttappa has killed his wife and committed suicide. Only after the discovery of the death note at Ex.P.2, he gave one more complaint at Ex.P.1 stating that the accused persons instigated deceased Muttappa to kill deceased Uma and thereafter commit suicide. Though the investigation officer has not chosen to enclose the earlier complaint, the gist of the same is forth coming in Ex.P.1, wherein the complainant is very definite and specific that the deceased Muttappa has killed his wife due to the quarrel that took place between them and thereafter committed suicide. There is no reference to the accused persons being instrumental in abating the deceased Muttappa to commit the murder of his wife and thereafter kill himself.

¶73

While the prosecution has failed to prove Ex.P.2 as the death note left by the deceased Muttappa, it has

¶74

11 -

¶75

CRL.A No. 100001 of 2015

¶76

also failed to establish the contents of the death note through independent evidence.

¶77

As rightly observed by the trial Court, the entire case of the prosecution is based on the allegations that the deceased Muttappa was impotent and that was the reasons for the accused persons to abuse him and also instigated deceased Uma to quarrel with him and this led the deceased Muttappa to kill Uma and also commit suicide. However, the very fact that deceased Uma was pregnant at the time of her death and also the evidence brought on record to the effect that before the marriage, deceased Uma became pregnant and since at that time she was a minor, that was the reason the accused persons were contemplating to file complaint against him and this was a factor for deceased Muttappa to marry her. This aspect goes to show that the allegations of deceased being impotent is false.

¶78

If really deceased Muttappa was impotent and inspite of the said fact deceased Uma became pregnant may be a compelling factor for deceased Muttappa to kill

¶79

12 -

¶80

CRL.A No. 100001 of 2015

¶81

his wife and put the blame on the accused persons that they abeted him to commit the offence in question. Absolutely there is no substance in the prosecution case and it has measurably failed to prove the allegations against the accused persons. Here is an unfortunate case, where the accused persons have lost their daughter and instead of allowing them to greave her death, they have been made accused to face prosecution not only for her death, but also for the suicide committed by deceased Muttappa.

¶82

One more important aspect to be taken note of is that the prosecution has not at all produced the postmortem report of deceased Uma which would have thrown light on the fact that at the time of her death, she was pregnant. Of course through the testimony of the prosecution witnesses the said fact has come on record. However, the investigating officer has not acted fairly. The prosecution has also not chosen to file application to summon the medical officer who has conducted the postmortem, summon the medical officer as well as the

¶83

13 -

¶84

CRL.A No. 100001 of 2015

¶85

postmortem report of Uma and examine him before the Court. Considering the entire evidence placed on record, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused persons. Absolutely there is no substance in the case of the prosecution to interfere with the order of Trial Court and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶86

ORDER

¶87

The appeal filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C, is

¶88

hereby dismissed .

¶89

Sd/JUDGE

¶90

Raju S/O Basappa Kali, v. Shanta W/O Vasanth Bevinamatti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju S/O Basappa Kali, v. Shanta W/O Vasanth Bevinamatti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri.Naseem Khan S/O Kashim Khan Vs Smt.B.B.Khuteja Nasim Khan

Sri D. Venkat Krishna Reddi Vs the State of Karnataka

Noorjahan W/O Yaseen Dargah Vs the State of Karnataka

Saleem a Nadaf S/O Alla Bhakshi Nadaf Vs the Karnataka State Police

The Manager/ Secretary Kisan Krishi Seva Sangh, Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Sharanu S/O Madiwalappa Dodamani Vs the State of Karnataka